@RyanMaue Sep 13
Now almost 50-years of global hurricane data.
No trends in frequency in number of named
storms or those that reach hurricane-force....

Just to nail the bullshit about two hurricanes in succession, there's the
record showing if anything, reduced storm activity in last 20 years.

The bad news for alarmists just got worse:

Quote:

We were wrong — worst effects of climate change
can be avoided, say experts
Scientists admit that world is warming more slowly than predicted

Ben Webster, Environment Editor
September 19 2017, 12:01am, The Times

The worst impacts of climate change can still be avoided, senior scientists
have said after revising their previous predictions.

The world has warmed more slowly than had been forecast by computer
models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of
emissions, a new study has found. Its projections suggest that the world
has a better chance than previously claimed of meeting the goal set by
the Paris agreement on climate change to limit warming to 1.5C above
pre-industrial levels.

The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, makes clear that
rapid reductions in emissions will still be required but suggests that the
world has more time to make the changes.

Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at
University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that
his past prediction had been wrong.

He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the
evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually
delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

Professor Grubb told The Times yesterday: “When the facts change, I
change my mind, as [John Maynard] Keynes said. It’s still likely to be very
difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a
better place than I thought.”

The latest study found that a group of computer models used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had predicted a more rapid
temperature increase than had taken place. Global average temperature
has risen by about 0.9C since pre-industrial times but there was a
slowdown in the rate of warming for 15 years before 2014.

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford
and another author, said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in
the observations.”

He added that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”. Too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.

According to the models, keeping the average temperature increase below 1.5C would mean that the world could emit only about 70 billion tonnes of carbon after 2015. At the present rate of emissions, this “carbon budget” would be used up in three to five years. Under the new assessment, the world can emit another 240 billion tonnes and still have a reasonable chance of keeping the temperature increase below 1.5C.

“That’s about 20 years of emissions before temperatures are likely to cross 1.5C,” Professor Allen said. “It’s the difference between being not doable and being just doable.”

Professor Grubb said that the fresh assessment was good news for island states in the Pacific, such as the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu, which could be inundated by rising seas if the average temperature rose by more than 1.5C.

Other factors pointed to more optimism on climate change, including China reducing its growth in emissions much faster than predicted and the cost of offshore windfarms falling steeply in Britain.

Professor Grubb called on governments to commit themselves to steeper cuts in emissions than they had pledged under the Paris agreement to keep warming below 1.5C. He added: “We’re in the midst of an energy revolution and it’s happening faster than we thought, which makes it much more credible for governments to tighten the offer they put on the table at Paris.”

The Met Office acknowledged yesterday a 15-year slowdown in the rise in average temperature but said that this pause had ended in 2014, the first of three record warm years. The slowing had been caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a pattern of warm and cool phases in Pacific sea-surface temperature, it said.

We were wrong — worst effects of climate change
can be avoided, say experts
Scientists admit that world is warming more slowly than predicted

Ben Webster, Environment Editor
September 19 2017, 12:01am, The Times

The worst impacts of climate change can still be avoided, senior scientists
have said after revising their previous predictions.

The world has warmed more slowly than had been forecast by computer
models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of
emissions, a new study has found. Its projections suggest that the world
has a better chance than previously claimed of meeting the goal set by
the Paris agreement on climate change to limit warming to 1.5C above
pre-industrial levels.

The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, makes clear that
rapid reductions in emissions will still be required but suggests that the
world has more time to make the changes.

Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at
University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that
his past prediction had been wrong.

He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the
evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually
delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

Professor Grubb told The Times yesterday: “When the facts change, I
change my mind, as [John Maynard] Keynes said. It’s still likely to be very
difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a
better place than I thought.”

The latest study found that a group of computer models used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had predicted a more rapid
temperature increase than had taken place. Global average temperature
has risen by about 0.9C since pre-industrial times but there was a
slowdown in the rate of warming for 15 years before 2014.

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford
and another author, said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in
warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in
the observations.”

He added that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”. Too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.

According to the models, keeping the average temperature increase below 1.5C would mean that the world could emit only about 70 billion tonnes of carbon after 2015. At the present rate of emissions, this “carbon budget” would be used up in three to five years. Under the new assessment, the world can emit another 240 billion tonnes and still have a reasonable chance of keeping the temperature increase below 1.5C.

“That’s about 20 years of emissions before temperatures are likely to cross 1.5C,” Professor Allen said. “It’s the difference between being not doable and being just doable.”

Professor Grubb said that the fresh assessment was good news for island states in the Pacific, such as the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu, which could be inundated by rising seas if the average temperature rose by more than 1.5C.

Other factors pointed to more optimism on climate change, including China reducing its growth in emissions much faster than predicted and the cost of offshore windfarms falling steeply in Britain.

Professor Grubb called on governments to commit themselves to steeper cuts in emissions than they had pledged under the Paris agreement to keep warming below 1.5C. He added: “We’re in the midst of an energy revolution and it’s happening faster than we thought, which makes it much more credible for governments to tighten the offer they put on the table at Paris.”

The Met Office acknowledged yesterday a 15-year slowdown in the rise in average temperature but said that this pause had ended in 2014, the first of three record warm years. The slowing had been caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a pattern of warm and cool phases in Pacific sea-surface temperature, it said.

Well, darn those climate scientists that insist on reporting good news (not from an alarmist standpoint at least...). The earth is greening apace and it appears to be mostly thanks to good old CO2. Wasn't it nice of Mother Nature to sequester away all that lovely energy in a form that we could make use of AND replenish the earth? Won't our grandchildren thank us for the abundant energy and increased food supplies that we have provided for them?

Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services1,2.Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning).Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition(9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%).CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.